Quiz

PRESCRIPTION VS.
LACHES
Miguel vs. Catalino G.R. 23072 November 29, 1968
-ACTION BARRED BY LACHES/ YES
- The Court held that plaintiffs were now estopped from questioning the deed ofsale. The
elements of laches are present in this case. Laches is concerned with theeffect of delay. It is principally a
question of iniquity of permitting a claim to be enforced,this inequity being founded on some change in
the condition of the property orthe relation of the parties. The petitioner’s passivity and inaction for more
than 34years justifythe defendant in setting up the defense of laches.
Akang vs. Municipality of Isulan 699 SCRA 745 (2013)
ACTION BARRED BY LACHES/ NO
The Petitioner’s Claim for Recovery of Possession and Ownership is Barred by Laches.Laches
has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length oftime, to do that
which, by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier. Itshould be stressed that
laches is not concerned only with the mere lapse of time.
As a general rule, an action to recover registered land covered by the Torrens Systemmay not be
barred by laches.Neither can laches be set up to resist the enforcement of animprescriptible legal right. In
exceptional cases, however, the Court allowed laches as a bar torecover a titled property. Thus, in
Romero v. Natividad, the Court ruled that laches will barred recovery of the property even if the mode of
transfer was invalid.
Vigilantibus sed non dormientibus jura subverniunt. The law aids the vigilant, not those
whosleep on their rights. This legal percept finds application in the petitioner's case.
REPUBLIC V. ANIMASL-37682, MAR. 29, 1974

ISSUE:Can forest lands be registered as real property?
HELD: No, forest lands as such cannot be registered. The mere fact that a person has a certificate
of title over them is unavailing.Indeed, the doctrine of indefeasibility does not apply here.After careful
deliberation, this Court grants the petition on the ground that the area covered by the patent and title is not
disposable public land, it being a part of the forest zone and, hence the patent and title thereto are null and
void.The defense of indefeasibility of a certificate of title issued pursuant to a free patent does not lie
against the state in an action for reversion of the land covered thereby when such land is a part of a public
forest or of a forest reservation. As a general rule, timber or forest lands are not alienable or disposable
under either the Constitution of 1935 or the Constitution of 1973.When the defendant Isagani Du Timbol
filed his application for free patent over the land in question on June 3, 1969, the area in question was not
a disposable or alienable public land but a public forest. Titles issued to private parties by the Bureau of
Lands when the land covered thereby is not disposable public land but forest land are void ab initio.
Vda de Alberto vs. CA G.R 29759 May 18,1989
-GUILTY OF LACHES
Issue : Whether or not Assuming, Arguendo, that the Trial Court Had Jurisdiction to take Cognizance of
the Instant Case, the Honorable Court of Appeals Erred is not holding that Respondent Alberto, Jr., in not
Bringing the instant action for an unreasonable length of time, was guilty of laches.
Held: Court has consistently declared that laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done
earlier. The negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warrants a presumption that
the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
SOURCES OF OBLIGATION
Office of the Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land G.R. 177056 September 18, 2009
ISSUE:
Whether or not, the court of appeals seriously erred in affirming the ruling of the lower court that
respondents are not obliged to provide free parking spaces to their customers or the public.
HELD:
The court held that, the RTC pronounced that The Building Code, which is the enabling law and the
Implementing Rules and Regulations do not impose that parking spaces shall be provided by the mall
owners free of charge. Absent such directive Ayala Land, Robinsons, Shangri-la and SM [Prime] are
under no obligation to provide them for free. Article 1158 of the Civil Code is clear an states that
"Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly determined in this Code or in
special laws are demandable and shall be regulated by the precepts of the law which establishes them; and
as to what has not been foreseen, by the provisions of this Book (1090). Therefore, FOR THE REASONS
GIVEN, the Court declares that Ayala Land[,] Inc., Robinsons Land Corporation, Shangri-la Plaza
Corporation and SM Prime Holdings[,] Inc. are not obligated to provide parking spaces in their malls for
the use of their patrons or public in general, free of charge. All counterclaims in Civil Case No. 00-1210
are dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs.
People vs. Galicia G.R. 194070 June 28, 2012

ISSUE: Whether or Not, considering that accused has been under preventive detention during the
pendency of the trial in these cases, let the same be credited in the service of his sentence, if still
applicable.
Moreover, the death of accused-appellant during the pendency of their appeal extinguishes not only their
criminal liabilities, but their civil liabilities as well for damages arising solely from the said crimes.[15]
"The death of the accused likewise extinguished the civil liability that was based exclusively on the crime
for which the accused was convicted (i.e., ex delicto), because no final judgment of conviction was yet
rendered by the time of his death. Only civil liability predicated on a source of obligation other than the
delict survived the death of the accused, which the offended party can recover by means of a separate
civil action and the the appeal of accused-appellant Benjamin Galicia y Roblas is DISMISSED, and this
criminal case is considered CLOSED AND TERMINATE.
Equatorial Realty Development vs. Mayfair Theater, Inc G.R. 133879 , November 21, 2001
ISSUE: the basis of the dismissal of the Complaint by the Regional Trial Court not only disregards
basic concepts and principles in the law on contracts and in civil law, especially those on rescission
and its corresponding legal effects, but also ignores the dispositive portion of the
Decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 106063 entitled `Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. &
Carmelo & Bauermann, Inc. vs. Mayfair Theater, Inc.'
The Petition is not meritorious.
Ownership of Subject Properties
We hold that under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at bar, as found by this Court en banc
in its Decision promulgated in 1996 in the mother case, no right of ownership was transferred from
Carmelo to Equatorial in view of a patent failure to deliver the property... to the buyer.
Thus, it has been held that while the execution of a public instrument of sale is recognized by law as
equivalent to the delivery of the thing sold,... such constructive or symbolic delivery, being merely
presumptive, is deemed negated by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the land sold.
From the peculiar facts of this case, it is clear that petitioner never took actual control and possession of
the property sold, in view of respondent's timely objection to the sale and the continued... actual
possession of the property.
Hence, respondent's opposition to the transfer of the property by way of sale to Equatorial was a legally
sufficient impediment that effectively prevented the passing of the property into the latter's hands.
In short, the sale to Equatorial may have been valid from inception, but it was judicially rescinded before
it could be consummated. Petitioner never acquired ownership, not because the sale was void, as
erroneously claimed by the trial court, but because the sale was not... consummated by a legally effective
delivery of the property sold.
Principles:
a contract of sale is valid until rescinded, it is equally true that ownership of the thing sold is not acquired
by mere agreement, but by tradition or delivery.
The peculiar facts of the present controversy as found by this Court... in an earlier relevant Decision show
that delivery was not actually effected; in fact, it was prevented by a legally effective impediment. Not
having been the owner, petitioner cannot be entitled to the civil fruits of ownership like rentals of the
thing sold. Furthermore,... petitioner's bad faith, as again demonstrated by the specific factual milieu of
said Decision, bars the grant of such benefits. Otherwise, bad faith would be rewarded instead of
punished.
By a contract of sale, "one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer ownership of and to
deliver a determinate thing and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent."
Ownership of the thing sold is a real right,... which the buyer acquires only upon delivery of the thing to
him "in any of the ways specified in articles 1497 to 1501, or in any other manner signifying an
agreement that the possession is... transferred from the vendor to the vendee."
This right is transferred, not by contract alone, but by tradition or delivery.
Non nudis pactis sed traditione dominia rerum transferantur. And there is said to be delivery if... and
when the thing sold "is placed in the control and possession of the vendee."
VASQUEZ VS. AYALA CORP. G.R 149734 NOVEMBER 19, 2004

Quiz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quiz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quiz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRESCRIPTION VS.

REPUBLIC V. ANIMASL-37682, MAR. 29, 1974

People vs. Galicia G.R. 194070 June 28, 2012

Ownership of Subject Properties

VASQUEZ VS. AYALA CORP. G.R 149734 NOVEMBER 19, 2004

You might also like